The genetic fallacy involves irrelevancy based upon the history of the idea. It is fallacious to argue for or against an idea solely on its past merits or demerits, unless past merits or demerits actually affect the idea's present value. The genetic fallacy is committed whenever evaluation of an idea is based upon irrelevant history. How an idea came to be formulated is part of the idea's history.

However, the origin of evidence can be relevant to the evaluation of the evidence, particularly in historical investigations. Similarly, the origin, or expertise, of testimony is relevant to evaluation of the merit of testimony. Equally, psychological phenomena are necessarily founded in human psychology.

In contrast, because scientific hypotheses are founded in empiricism, they can be objectively evaluated according to established knowledge and techniques, rendering the origin or history of the hypothesis (though interesting in many instances) irrelevant to evaluation of its content.

Theologian, William Lane Craig, who ought to know better, misuses the concept of genetic fallacy to attack anti-theistic arguments that point out the psychology-driven anthropogenic origins of mythologies.

Follow?

Comment Policy

Abusive, pro-religion, and spamming comments will neither be accepted nor thoroughly read, so don't waste your time and ours.

Mission

Mission Statement. The opinions expressed here are necessarily those of the management ...

Followers

Don't want to be turned on?

This site has Snap Shots installed. It enhances links with visual previews. This might bring you the information you need, without your having to leave the site, while other times it lets you "look ahead," before deciding if you want to follow a link or not.

Should you decide this is not for you, just click the Options icon in the upper right corner of the Snap Shot and opt-out.